assignment1/a.tex

   1 %&a
   2 \begin{document}
   3 \maketitle
   4 Regarding the case of \JS{} we bring out an advice for further action. In the
   5 first paragraph we dwell a little over the facts and in the second paragraph we
   6 reason from several ethical theories and lastly in the third paragraph a
   7 conclusion is drawn.
   8
   9 \paragraph{Facts}
  10 Surrounding the case of \JS{} we are aware of several facts.
  11 \Jo{} was a seasoned hacker and thought of as such by his fellow students.
  12 The remark that the teacher made was understood by \Jo{} as a challenge while
  13 the other student did not thought so.
  14 \Jo{} immediately gave in and confessed
  15 while stating he did not meant to do harm with it.
  16 While the dean has a good idea of what hacking is in the eyes of computer
  17 science students. On the other hand, some others in the board see ``hacking''
  18 as deviant behaviour.
  19
  20 Not all information is relevant for the case. Factual information about the
  21 location of the university and the courses \Jo{} currently takes are not
  22 relevant. On the other side, some other information could be useful.
  23 Information about the curriculum concerning courses about hacking and security
  24 can shed a light on the motives of \Jo{} and what is common knowledge about,
  25 possible ethical, hacking.
  26
  27 \paragraph{Ethical perspective}
  28 The gut reaction to this case is to not give Jon a conditional heavy penalty
  29 but to let him go clear with a stern lecture. The action was clearly thought
  30 through and but it seems he was unable to understand the impact of his action.
  31 This intuition arises mainly from the fact that no data was touched and \Jo{} a
  32 well-performing student is. The only setback is the fact that \Jo{} is a
  33 seasoned hacker and possible should have known better.
  34
  35 For the analysis we distinguish between the two main views on ethics.
  36 The consequentialists
  37
  38 Consequentialism is the view on ethics that dictates that an action is good or
  39 bad when the consequences are good or bad. From a purely consequentialists
  40 point of view \Jo{} should not need to be punished. This is because no files
  41 were read and thus no privacy has been infringed on. One could even argue that
  42 the consequences were positive since the system administrators can improve the
  43 security of the system.
  44
  45 Deontologism is the view on ethics that dictates that if an action is good or
  46 bad is only determined by the nature of the action. From the given facts it is
  47 clear that some members of the board think of hacking as an inherently bad
  48 behaviour. \Jo{} on the other hand thinks it is fun and does it for the sake of
  49 creativity and testing the limits of the system. The shift in normativity in
  50 cyberspace has been described by Nissenbaum~\cite{nissenbaum2004hackers}. This
  51 influences the deontological way of reasoning significantly since for one side
  52 the action is not inherently bad but for the other it is.
  53
  54 It is not fair to punish \Jo{} severely, for example by expelling him, just to
  55 send a message. In this way \Jo{} is even more demonized.
  56
  57 \paragraph{Conclusion}
  58 Because my current view of hackers is not to see them as deviants but as
  59 creative people and the fact that there were no severe consequences I would
  60 suggest giving \Jo{} a stern lecture and invest energy in teaching about
  61 hacking in corresponding courses. In this way a message can be sent to the
  62 other students, as some of the board members wanted, about hacker ethics.
  63
  64 %Ethical Theories and Concepts
  65 %       Consequences
  66 %               Who are the stakeholders ? Who is affected?
  67 The stakeholders are the faculty members and administrators. Affected is Jon.
  68
  69 %               What are the consequences of this course of action?
  70 The consequences are minimal besides the work the police, and dean had with the
  71 case. The hacking itself didn't have severe consequences because no files were
  72 read.
  73 Jon would even argue that there are positive consequences, namely that he could
  74 give advice to the system administrators.
  75
  76 %               Are some consequences especially objectionable?
  77 Therefore the consequences are not objectable
  78
  79 %       Rules
  80 %               Are any rights violated in this case?
  81 Breaching into systems unauthorized is not permitted. Especially since it were
  82 patient records.
  83
  84 %               What considerations of justice/fairness apply?
  85
  86
  87
  88 %               What considerations of respect for persons apply?
  89 Very sensitive information was possible leaked and that can hurt the victims
  90 greatly.
  91
  92 %               What other moral rules apply in this case?
  93 ---
  94
  95 %       Character
  96 %               Are any factors in the case related to character flaws/strengths?
  97 Jon is smart and wants to boast to his fellow-students. Also some faculty
  98 members believe ``Hacking'' is the lowest of lowest of crimes which is an
  99 uninformed statement that does not comply to Jon's view on hacking activities.
 100
 101 %               What is the future impact on character for possible solutions to the
 102 %               case study?
 103 This decision will set the tone for futere hacking related problems. It can
 104 harm the
 105
 106 %Public Policy Implications
 107 %       Distinguish
 108 %               What you feel you personally should do in this case (personal morality)
 109 Personally a stern lecture would be greatly sufficient.
 110
 111 %               What everyone should be required to do (duty and law)
 112 By law and duty this should be punished. However, not to set a tone.
 113
 114 %               What everyone should be encouraged to do (supererogatory)
 115
 116
 117 %       Also distinguish:
 118 %               Present state of affairs
 119 %                       --Law-> Minimally acceptable state of affairs
 120 %                       --Exhortation-> Idea state of affairs
 121
 122 \nocite{*}
 123 \bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
 124 \bibliography{a}
 125 \end{document}